Colin Craig should be talking about Conservative Party policies, but instead he is letting himself be distracted by questions about his personal beliefs.

He seems to have adopted a stance of accepting conspiracy theories may be true, as they have not been proven untrue. That is not a sensible position. The nature of conspiracy theories is you can never prove they are not true. You need to use common sense. The latest is on the moon landings:

Conservative leader Colin Craig says he has “no idea” whether man has walked on the moon, adding it’s “what we’re told” and he is “sort of” inclined to believe it.

His comments this morning came after it emerged last week he has no formal position on chemtrails – a conspiracy theory that suggests the trails left by aircraft deliberately spread chemicals.

Mr Craig was asked about the moon landing conspiracy – which suggests the Apollo moon landings were faked by the US government – by Radio Live host Marcus Lush this morning.

“I don’t have a belief or a non-belief in these things, I jut don’t know,” Mr Craig replied.

Asked again, Mr Craig said he had “no idea” whether man had walked on the moon.

“That’s what we’re told. I’m sort of inclined to believe it. But at the end of the day, I haven’t looked into it. And I know there’s some very serious people that question these things.”

He went on: “I’m happy that they can think that. I’m not going to judge any of these things without the facts.”

What Craig should have done is laugh at the question, joke about whether Marcus is also going to ask him if the moon is made of cheese, and then start talking policies.

Neil Armstrong once said, in relation to the claims the moon landings were faked, that they could always head up to the moon themselves and grab the camera he left behind there.

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 4th, 2013 at 1:00 pm and is filed under NZ Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

195 Responses to “Craig on conspiracy theories”

I think he is David (trying to get on to policy) but if you listen to the track, media jocks like Marcus keep pushing this stuff. CRaig again and again trys to get back to his policy platform, and Lush interrupts “Well, what about the Twin Towers?” etc. This is indicative of the NZ media, not Craig. They’re hunting for cartoons and foibles. This one was as manufactured as the TV3 vapor trails.

Political discourse has become a form of sport.

Re the Moon thing, the latest telescope can see the Moon buggy tracks in the lunar soil.

Wat. you can’t take that from the audio. Craig is busy having a life, running several businesses(5 I think he as) and now running a party. he doesn’t have time to read Ian Wishart books, which was his point.

This story basically goes…” So Mr Craig, in not expressing a view, you think it MIGHT be true?”

Just goes to show how ridiculous/slanted/biased the media is in New Zealand. I’m no fan of the Colin Craig, but why are they asking him questions like this? Unless they relate to policy, they’re not at all relevant.

(Yes, I know they’re trying to ridicule him and make him look like a dick, but that’s not really the media’s job – they should be trying to find out what he would do if in Parliament.)

But iMP, even if you hadn’t read up on it the default answer would be “I haven’t seen anything to suggest we didn’t land on the moon” rather than “I have no idea”. It’s pretty simple and it is pretty easy to avoid these gotcha questions.

Craig is busy having a life, running several businesses(5 I think he as) and now running a party. he doesn’t have time to read Ian Wishart books, which was his point.

But you don’t have to read an Ian Wishart book to have at least some “idea” about the moon landings though, do you? The 4
0th anniversary of the moon landings was all over the media only a few years ago. I’m left wondering who are these “very serious people that question these things” that have led to Craig having doubts.

To be fair, I’m willing to believe that Craig isn’t that dim, but he’s doing himself no favours.

Personally, i think Kiwis are finding this quite endearing, rather than the Peter Dunne style ordered careful double-poli-speak. Marcus seemed to appreciate it. There doesn’t appear to be any pretense with Colin Craig. It’ll get beaten out of him, though. The media nasties are coming at him like Pacmen.

That Colin is being asked these questions is indicative that the media know that they will get a story out of the reply. No one asks John Key, or David Cunliffe or even Rusel Norman these sorts of questions, because they know the answer will not be news.

The only sensible answer to the question “Did man land on the moon?” is “Yes.” To the follow-up question “What do you say to people that think we didn’t?”, the only sensible answer is “They are wrong”. The answer to any follow-up question to that is to pivot to the Conservative Party’s policy on science and innovation.

There’s no way for Craig to win here. The media are going to try to embarrass him any way they can because they want to help the other side get elected. If he finds ways to prevent that they will just stop interviewing him live and instead misrepresent his views when he’s not around. He needs to find ways to communicate with the public directly.

Yeah, if Craig was more experienced and cynical in politics, he might have counter-attacked Lush with:

“Do you believe it’s fair to us taxpayers that Radio Live’s owner, MediaWorks, has got off millions of dollars of owed tax because of an IRD deal in the MediaWorks receivership? We taxpayers are thus the ones who allow you to sit here day in, day out, preaching your Leftist garbage. And you want to talk about Moon landings. Our millions for that?”

The fact that he is not learning and continually making these basic mistakes is a bit concerning for me (with regards to having him in Govt with National). I don’t really have an issue with what he said in this interview or Plunket’s (he is allowed his own views after all) but this is politics and he is representing his party. Every time he starts talking about this is time he could be pushing forward his policies. Why doesn’t he seem to get this??

The idea that Craig isn’t getting a fair go from the media is hilarious. Craig is doing this to himself. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how easily Craig could avoid this. Hell, half the comments on this thread have made sensible suggestions. He has to be aware of that. But he still thinks the best approach is to let people ask the questions and then start digging in by not dismissing them.

So either he is incapable of managing the media – in which case he clearly isn’t ready to be leader of a party in Parliament. Or he is doing this deliberately because he would rather be talking about chemtrails or fake moon landings than his own policies. Which poses another question – does he think his own policies are less credible than chemtrails conspiracy theories?

Conservative supporters can tell themselves it’s a “biased, left-wing MSM” if they want. But it wasn’t the MSM that originally published the question about chemtrails on the Conservative website, and it’s not the MSM that keeps giving non-committal answers. Craig should be ridiculing these questions and giving a firm no. Instead he keeps giving vague “I don’t know” answers which make it sound like he thinks these conspiracy theories are at least credible.

What really pisses me off that as a leader of an AGW skeptical party giving all the nutty conspiracies credence allows the left to lump AGW skepticism in with all the other conspiracies, when in fact the reverse is closer to reality.

I am a bit puzzled why there should be any question about the moon landing being true. Surely at the time anyone with the appropriate equipment and a directional aerial pointed at the moon could have picked up the signals. As far as I can remember the Soviet Union didn’t try to claim the landings were false. They criticised the Americans for putting men’s lives at risk as a stunt.

It’s not hard to question the moon landing. The Russians were ‘first’ on just about everything space-related, and the Americans came out of nowhere to take the moon.

That’s because the Russian genius in charge of their space program died of lung cancer in the early 1960’s, and his replacement wasn’t half the leader his predecessor was, which allowed the americans to take the lead in the race to the moon. One of the Russian cosmonauts published a book on the russian space program, and reckoned if the first guy hadn’t died, the russians would have been on the moon in late 67-68

To me the question is Colin Craig simply ignorant of the media and perception, or is he really aiming at the flakes ? The more sophisticated (apparently sophisticated) strategy of deliberately encouraging this vagueness about conspiracies in order to seem “not the typical politician” seems unlikely, what upside would he see ? I think he’s earnest, serious, and almost completely unsuited for politics. Add to that the fact that his policies are a bunch of populist rubbish, only the truly disaffected will vote for him.

He seems to have adopted a stance of accepting conspiracy theories may be true, as they have not been proven untrue.

The alternative position is that there is no explanation for anything that looks like a conspiracy, i.e. a position where vigilance does not exist. There is a name for people who ignore evidence of conspiracy on political grounds, and it is not a pretty one.

J Bloggs>That’s because the Russian genius in charge of their space program died of lung cancer in the early 1960′s, and his replacement wasn’t half the leader his predecessor was

That’d be Sergei Korolev, and he died in 1966 when things were already too late for the Soviets to salvage their moon program.

The reason that they failed was because their early program was a series of stunts, rather than a well-structured R&D program.

Look at the US Gemini program: There was a first simple test flight. They they tried a space walk. Then they tried a longer duration mission, to show that people could survive long enough to make it to the moon and back, and to prove fuel cell technology so they knew they could generate enough power. Then they showed that they understood orbital mechanics enough to rendevous two spacecraft, without docking. Then they completed a series of missions to show that they could dock two spacecraft, maneuver in orbit, and master space walking. All coherent stuff taking them towards their goal.

By contrast, the Soviets looked at the US plans to launch a 2 man craft and decided to launch just one 3 man craft, even tho the guys inside were packed so close they could hardly wave their arms around and the seats were turned 90 degrees from the instrument panel. Then they worried about the US planning the first space walk and hurried their own guy out the hatch first, which was almost fatal. Then there was no follow-up for years. They had the first woman in space, but she was it for twenty years. Stunts designed to prove the “superiority” of Communism, but like Communism they were just symptoms of failure.

I am a bit puzzled why there should be any question about the moon landing being true.

I’ve seen a couple of clips that don’t leave much doubt.
In one an “astronaut” moves near a flag, and the flag moves like a breeze has found it. If there video was taken in an environment without an atmosphere (like the lunar surface) then this couldn’t happen.
In another the astronauts are in orbit and are blacking out the inner surfaces of the capsule so that the earth looks like it is far away. They were on youtube, sorry but I have no links to them.

Re the Moon thing, the latest telescope can see the Moon buggy tracks in the lunar soil.

The back story to the theory was that JFK started the mission to force knowledge of the Nazi technology into the public arena. In other words the problem for NASA wasn’t in getting to the moon, it was making it look like it happened with ordinary technology.

Mr Craig has obviously been doing some research. Three years on & the sane are staying away from his party in droves so he has introduced a new strategy.

So far he has the conspiratists, the child beaters, the Godwhacks, the lizard people & Winston Peter’s rejects signing up & eating out of the palm of his hand. Provided no one introduces a test to weed out lunatics from the electoral rolls victory is assured.

An opinion poll, carried out by Gfk NOP for BBC’s The Conspiracy Files in 2011, found that 14% of people questioned in the UK and 15% in the US did not believe the official explanation that al-Qaeda was responsible, and instead believed the US government was involved in a wider conspiracy. Among 16 to 24-year-olds that belief rises to around one in four.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14572054

He seems to have adopted a stance of accepting conspiracy theories may be true, as they have not been proven untrue. That is not a sensible position. The nature of conspiracy theories is you can never prove they are not true. You need to use common sense. The latest is on the moon landings:

The same can be said about claims that god exists.

It is exactly the position frequently advanced by christians. The only difference is that Colin is applying it to other things. At least he is consistent and intellectually honest.Christians have no proof of God, so demand others prove their incredible claims are not true. They reverse the onus of proof onto the one deny the claim, rather than the person making it. As David says, the sensible option is non-belief in the absence of evidence.

By far the most bizzare belief he holds is his belief in God. That said, I like most of his ideas on the direction of the country and would not rule out voting for him just yet.

How can you expect to be taken seriously wiki? Or do you not expect that? FFS, it must be true, it’s on the internet. So that ad I got just before saying that there are hundreds of beautiful women in my home town who want to sleep with me must be true as well. I better be off then…..

Your appeal to the popular does not hide the lack of evidence for your wild claims.

I never argued that the popularity of conspiracy theories makes them true. It is sensible for a politician not to alienate himself from roughly a quarter of the population by repeating the typically inane comments of politicians re conspiracy theory.

Ah, ugly truth: between 15 and 20 % of Americans can be found to believe ANYTHING. That doesn’t _prove_ anything. There was stuff left on the moon, and as someone else pointed out, we can now see that space junk. There was also a reflector left on the moon, so that the varying distance between the Earth and Moon could be accurately measured to test a couple of theories about the changes in the Earth’s length of day.

Grand theories of this or that massive conspiracy are simply unsustainable. Such conspiracies would not remain hidden for long because of the numbers of people involved.

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more people, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through deliberate collusion, an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact.

So, according to UglyTruth, we have a conspiracy theory about astronauts in space:

UglyTruth (2,081 comments) says:
December 4th, 2013 at 4:55 pm

I’ve seen a couple of clips that don’t leave much doubt.
In one an “astronaut” moves near a flag, and the flag moves like a breeze has found it. If there video was taken in an environment without an atmosphere (like the lunar surface) then this couldn’t happen.
In another the astronauts are in orbit and are blacking out the inner surfaces of the capsule so that the earth looks like it is far away. They were on youtube, sorry but I have no links to them.

Yes, right, so how many people are involved in this astronauts-in-space conspiracy?

Ah, ugly truth: between 15 and 20 % of Americans can be found to believe ANYTHING. That doesn’t _prove_ anything.

Of course, please see my previous comment to Kea.

There was stuff left on the moon, and as someone else pointed out, we can now see that space junk. There was also a reflector left on the moon, so that the varying distance between the Earth and Moon could be accurately measured to test a couple of theories about the changes in the Earth’s length of day.

True but irrelevant. The theory is about the Apollo mission being faked, not the fact that they have sent men to the moon.

Grand theories of this or that massive conspiracy are simply unsustainable. Such conspiracies would not remain hidden for long because of the numbers of people involved.

Yes, this is the usual strawman. It fails because conspiracies can be compartmentalized so that the average participant has no direct knowledge of the greater conspiracy.

That Craig can’t outright deny conspiracy theories tells you everything you need to know. A moon landing skeptic/agnostic is a conspiracy theorist by default. You could say he’s at least lacking in guile or artifice, but that only makes him an honest idiot.

Hell, if I was in the media I’d now make it my mission to ask him what he makes of every nutty conspiracy out there. If you’re gonna stick your dick in the mincer someone’s gonna turn the handle. I can only imagine Key is ironically lamenting that an event that took place in 1969 may cost him the election.

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” – piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

Of course its all settled as I said above. You can see the lunar buggy tracks in the soil via the new hubble telescope now.

Actually, that proves very little…except that something made those marks. There have been various unmanned landings. And there’s apparently been 6 different moon landings. I think the argument has always been that the first moon landing was faked, not that they all have been.

Returning to where this thread started…I am very dissappointed that CC indulged Lush in this nonsense for a minute…several more witty commenters than me have suggested what he should have said to Lush…

I don’t have anything like the technical knowledge to know whether PaulL’s clip at 5.51 above contains correct technical info or not…I would be interested in anyone’s comments about it..

The reason I dont listen to “they never went to the moon” conspiracy nuts is simple: How would you keep the THOUSANDS of people who would have had to be in on it quiet…for FORTY FOUR YEARS…And remember there wasnt just one mission: they went NINE times…As former astrounaut Charlie Duke says at the end of the excellent doco “In the Shadow of the Moon”…”We went to moon nine times…why the hell did we fake it NINE times…if we faked it?” Game set and match for me right there…

In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

Kubrick couldn’t have faked the moon landings by himself. A director needs actors. So what was the pay-off for the actors? And for the studio crew who worked with Kubrick?

How can the astronauts’ two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake.

My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose.

He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot, but actually all over the Apollo photographic record. In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled Kubrick’s Odyssey, I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can in this short essay.

One thing that I am sure of is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that would explain who did it, and how.

So, if you were Kubrick, why would you want people to remember you as the guy who faked the moon landings rather the professional film maker who had a distinguished career?

The theory is about the Apollo mission being faked, not the fact that they have sent men to the moon.

Absolutely correct. It’s curious that those who call conspiracy theorists nutters have to resort to ad hominem attacks or to make arguments that are beside the point. It the truth was so obvious surely there’d be no need to do that.

Jesus…just in the few minutes I spent typing my comment…UT, tell me…are you a recreational drug user? (Other than alcohol?) I’m sure you won’t mind answering since you use a pseud, so no issue of breach of your privacy arises….unless of course the GCSB is paying particular attention to your comments on a blog…

How would you keep the THOUSANDS of people who would have had to be in on it quiet…for FORTY FOUR YEARS…And remember there wasnt just one mission: they went NINE times…As former astrounaut Charlie Duke says at the end of the excellent doco “In the Shadow of the Moon”…”We went to moon nine times…why the hell did we fake it NINE times…if we faked it?”

Another silly point. The argument has been that the FIRST mission was faked. It’s interesting that this argument has morphed into something more.

I agree with regards to the moon landing. Years ago I came across a whole lot of information that called into question that it actually happened, and it didn’t ring true to me, though I couldn’t pinpoint why at the time. Your position is more like the “Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200″ gate in Monopoly, very sensible. Though, if you read Dean Koontz, he’s not averse to entertaining a few conspiracy theories in some of his books and how people would actually get away with them, even if a lot of people were involved.

I have seen some surprisingly convincing evidence that, at least the photos of, the moon landing were fake. It was not hysterical nonsense. However further research revealed the explanations to the points raised. The evidence in support of the moon landings is far more convincing and credible.

Ross the Communist (I think you are that one; I get confused these days)…even if ONE landing was faked, thousands of people would have had to be in on it…as I said in a comment on this topic on another thread the other day: right down to the humble steward on an aircraft carrier that picked up the astronauts 4-5 days before they were supposed to…Not to mention the Russians monitoring the hell out of what Apollo 11 was doing…so that disposes of the “they just circled the earth for five days then splashed down…” theory…

But why am I wasting my time? If you think it/they were faked, you go right on believing it…no skin off my nose…

If I intend to commit (mortal) sins with the caveat that they’ll just be forgiven, then I’ll not have the proper purpose of amendment in order to make the Confession valid. Someone like me, who just knows too much, is unlikely to turn back once on the path of damnation.

The Russians did all the important scientific work first and were more advanced in many areas. That takes nothing away from the American effort, which I rate as man kinds biggest single achievement, because it brought together so man areas of technology and human endeavor.

The Russians were more advanced and would have been closely monitoring everything. Before, after and during the landing.

If I intend to commit (mortal) sins with the caveat that they’ll just be forgiven, then I’ll not have the proper purpose of amendment in order to make the Confession valid. Someone like me, who just knows too much, is unlikely to turn back once on the path of damnation.

Lucy, a refreshingly candid response that encapsulates why I think you would be good company.

Kubrick couldn’t have faked the moon landings by himself. A director needs actors. So what was the pay-off for the actors? And for the studio crew who worked with Kubrick?

How should I know? If they paid Kubrick off then they could pay the others off: get them to sign a NDA before they started and then feed them some spiel about how it’s important that the US was seen to be technologically strong in order to discourage the Russians.

So, if you were Kubrick, why would you want people to remember you as the guy who faked the moon landings rather the professional film maker who had a distinguished career?

Have you seen Eyes Wide Shut? Maybe he wanted to be remembered as the guy told us what they were really about.

nasska, nah I never go for naughty girls. They are banal and make inpersonal lovers. Lucy on the other hand is a throbing ball of barely contained passions and intellect. Far easier to make a good girl a bit naughty, than make a naughty girl a bit good.

I think Craig’s only problem is he is politically immature. He is trying to please everyone, and in doing so, hasn’t yet worked out that giving such answers will only put him in hot water. Give him a week or two and he’ll have it sussed and be lying on cue like the rest of them.

Ah, DG and others (including me): People like UT will NEVER be convinced by logic and obvious evidence. It is like trying to show that there are no cats that are green with purple polka dots. You can find EVERY cat in the world, and the reply will be “Ah, but you haven’t found the green cat with purple polka dots that I am my fellow conspiracy theorists know exist.”

And just on one point: As for the two shadows – out beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, both the Sun and the light of the Sun reflected from the Earth will cast shadows. If the Earth had no atmosphere, and the Moon were in the sky at the same time as the Sun (which we know happens because often we can see the Moon during the day), then we would see two shadows cast on Earth – one from the Sun and the other due to the light reflected from the Moon. Our atmosphere scatters the light so that we only see the one shadow. You can see a similar effect if you stand in sunlight and near a building with large windows. You can get two shadows.

But I know that the simple physical explanation will never be enough. Same as people who claim that aliens must have built the pyramids. We mere humans could never have built something like those ourselves. Sigh.

Did they ever ask the vile Klarken beast what her view was on the moon landing, chemtrails etc ? Of course not !

You have seen me challenge the conservatives many times on various issues. But I do not appreciate being told what to think by the left wing media. They fear him because they know dam well that many of his policies may have popular appeal. They even appeal to me, just as long as he does not get all god addled and start persecuting poofters and stuff.

I agree. As I said, a bit of political maturity will teach him to be more guarded in his comments, and protect his political butt.
Sadly it all contributes to politicians who are so obscure, we actually know very little about them – thanks to a story hungry media.

So UT, you obviously avoid ALL multivitamins because they contain selenium and zinc, and all other micronutrients? Because while a small amount (like a microscopic amount of fluorine) is necessary for good health, too much can be fatal? Because you see, nature adapted to the environment in which it evolved. So it found a way to use those small amounts of even heavy metals – they are usually needed for triggering enzymes and the like. It’s just that too much can be harmful. In fact, MOST of what we physically consume is like that. Oh, I guess you don’t drink water either, because too much can be fatal. That would be the logical extension of no fluorine (and other micronutrients).

I agree. As I said, a bit of political maturity will teach him to be more guarded in his comments, and protect his political butt.

Judith, I find that sad. I would rather he be open and honest, even if I disagree with some of his views. We all want honest politicians but the sheeple then cut to bits anyone that is honest. It leaves us with only the contrived and insincere to vote for.

I hope the guy does well. I may not be christian and I are a classical liberal in many ways, but I see lots of common ground with the guy. He also provides a needed counter balance to the excess of the lefist parties.

So UT, you obviously avoid ALL multivitamins because they contain selenium and zinc, and all other micronutrients?

In your world the difference between neurotoxin and micronutrient is just a matter of semantics, right?
If fluoride was necessary for good health then it would exist in mother’s milk in similar quantities to beneficial micronutrients.

It seems that when it comes to the Conservative Party & Colin Craig, there are some in the media who want to ask every question
except a relevant question. I’m referring of course to the deliberate and diversionary questioning of Colin Craig on various issues that have nothing to do with either Colin Craig, or the Conservative Party.

Outside looking in, I would appreciate the media asking questions of Colin Craig pertaining to Health, Education, Law & Order, Race Relations, & Welfare, because it will be the answers to these types of questions that will determine my voting choice in 2014.

If some members of the media wish to engage in self-congratulatory comedy at other peoples expense, then they are welcome to
enter “Novice Night” at their local Comedy club, and leave the serious conversation and debate to the adults.

PrettyLies, in fact fluoride does exist in water naturally. That is how they found out about it. Areas with more fluoride had less tooth decay.

So what’s your point?

Newborns typically feed naturally, not from formula. Nutrition is obviously important for infants and children, so the lack of fluoride in breast milk says that it is not essential for tooth and bone development. You might as well argue for lead to be added to the water supply, fluoride is that toxic.

Uglytruth:If fluoride was necessary for good health then it would exist in mother’s milk in similar quantities to beneficial micronutrients.

If there is fluoride in the mother’s water and food then there will be fluoride in her milk. Its pretty hard to get out more than you take in unless you believe that mammary glands are capable of transmutation of elements.

“You might as well argue for lead to be added to the water supply, fluoride is that toxic.”

PrettyLies, that is factually wrong.

The body does not know how to handle lead, but it can process fluoride and use it to make the body stronger. Like many conspiracy nutters you can not understand that toxicity is dose related. Pure water can (and does) kill people who drink too much of it.

If there is fluoride in the mother’s water and food then there will be fluoride in her milk.

The point is that fluoride is not passed on as an essential micronutrient when it exists the mother’s blood. This means that there is no good reason for it to be there to which might offset its toxic effects.

“We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.” —-Dr. John Yiamouyiannishttp://www.whale.to/d/fluoride.html

Melley proposes that conspiracy thinking arises from a combination of two factors, when someone: 1) holds strong individualist values and 2) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual’s right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one’s own life, and you get what Melley calls agency panic, “intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy” to outside forces or regulators.

When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger forces are to blame for usurping this freedom. “For one who refuses to relinquish the assumptions of liberal individualism, such newly revealed forms of regulation frequently seem so unacceptable or unbelievable that they can only be met with anxiety, melodrama, or panic.”

I see John Key has come in to provide damage control for the Conservatives. Apparently Colin Craig was just winding the media up. Yeah, right.

This isn’t a one-off event. Colin Craig has a long history of gaffes generating bad headlines. If he can turn “no opinion” into a negative news story, how well will he do with fringe (which I define as “believed by a very small percent of the population”) issues where he does have a firm minority opinion? National needs to distance themselves from Colin Craig and his party, or they will be the stone that drags them down next election.

It’s not the media’s fault that Colin Craig opened himself up to such silly questioning.
If he publicly entertains the idea that he cannot make up his mind on these conspiracy theories, either becasue he really might believe in them or because he is trying to appeal to a certain clientel, then he’s fair game.

In fact the media should ask these questions. It’s up to Colin Craig himself where he wants the discussion to go.

And the fact whether an aspiring politician can evaluate facts, reason rationally and make sensible decision is very relevant.

Fluoride is in much of the water, thus it goes into the mothers breasts and thus into the many of the world’s children.

To call it a dangerous additive when it goes into water without naturally occurring fluoride, to ensure that the positive impacts on teeth are universal (also occur in areas without fluoride in the water), is unscientific.

And for about the 4th time now to ross 69, you know very well that a number of European countries add it to their salt instead of water.

If he publicly entertains the idea that he cannot make up his mind on these conspiracy theories, either becasue he really might believe in them or because he is trying to appeal to a certain clientel, then he’s fair game.

The problem for the corporate media is that he is going off the reservation by not, on principle, avoiding or pooh-poohing anything that is conspiracy related, and if they use this against him as an ad hom then it starts to look like they are in on the conspiracy themselves somehow.

Ugly Truth, Key is proposing to use Craig and his party to stay in government and so places a political novice at the centre of the governing coalition’s future planning – reason enough to learn where he personally stands on stuff.

Holding him accountable for his ambition to be involved in our government is not a conspiracy.

Fluoride is in much of the water, thus it goes into the mothers breasts and thus into the many of the world’s children.

If it was of benefit to children then the concentration would be higher, like the concentrations of beneficial micronutrients.

To call it a dangerous additive when it goes into water without naturally occurring fluoride, to ensure that the positive impacts on teeth are universal (also occur in areas without fluoride in the water), is unscientific.

You could say the same about radioactive elements like plutonium, but you would never argue for the addition of radioactive substances to the drinking water in order to bring it up to “naturally occurring levels”.

You know someone has seriously messed up values when they use a religious meme – “universal” – to push for a secular goal – “scientific”.

The fluoride issue is quite complex, with entrenched liars on both sides of the debate.
If anyone wants to see recent in depth discussions, there is a series of blogged debates ongoing at http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/featured local retired scientist Ken Perrott & Paul Connett.

Kea (9,237 comments) says:
December 4th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
eszett , what was the putrid Klarken beasts view on these topics ?

You must know as surely the msm asked her the standard questions they ask ALL political candidates. You know, stuff about chemtrails, aliens, the moonlanding…

Kea, Colin Craig could have shut down the discussion after the very first question was posted. If he had answered in a sensible fashion, no one would have known, no one would ahve bothered to report a common sense answer.

The very fact that the whole discussion is kept alive is only due to the way Craig repsonds to these questions. And hence it does become a topic.

I am sure many silly questions have been asked of John Key and Helen Clark and never have been reported because they brushed them off and stopped it becoming a story. Politician gives a common sense, reasonable answer to stupid question is not a headline.

But then again, Craig is nowhere nearly in the same league as Clark or Key.

This is definitely a self inflicted wound by Craig. The MSM have pre-conceived ideas about anyone to the right of their position (which on average is well to the left). Even moderate centrist Nats get gotcha questions on issues that the left get worked up about and think the Nats are raging right wingers about (e.g. the current welfare reforms). As you go further to the right, the further you stray into ‘enemy territory’ for left wingers and the more extreme they will perceive you to be and they will seek any confirmation of their preconceived notions. Hence ACT candidates get extra scrutiny on economic policy for any evidence of Rogernomics II that the media can obsess about.

For the Conservatives, sporting a plethora of socially conservative policies that really get up lefties noses AND having – shock horror – practicing Christians in the party, it opens up a whole new area of world views that the left think are balmy (pro-choice on abortion, belief in God and the Bible etc.). If they find evidence that a conservative, in addition to holding mainstream conservative social positions and religious beliefs, believe some nutty stuff as well then its GAME ON.

Surely the chemtrails questions were a clue as to what the media would be trying to do with Craig. Now every conspiracy theory is on the table for discussion – 9/11, Obama’s birthplace, fluoride, the Illuminati, man on the moon… you name it. That Craig cannot or will not rule these matters unequivocally out either by being very clear in his statements in favour of orthodox belief or, if he actually harbours his own silly belief in some of these conspiracy theories, to refuse to even discuss these sorts of questions, speaks volumes for his naivety. There are a number of time tested and proven techniques that politicians the world over use to deflect away from questions that the man in the street consider to be very much peripheral to the core of what they want to know no matter how persistent the interviewer such as policy positions and views on the major economic and social issues exercising middle NZ.

If Craig cannot learn to STFU then he’s doomed in my opinion. The left and media will define him as a conspiracy theorist driven nutter even if his views on these matters are tentative and maybe neutral. That he dabbles in, discusses, mulls over and refuses to rule out discussion on who brought down the twin towers is an epic political fail. I don’t know who is advising him but whoever they are, they need to get this man top level media training and not let him near another reporter until he can competently navigate any interview without being sidetracked by this rubbish.

Ugly Truth, the word universal, as in universal education and health care, is not a religious meme.

It is a religious meme because Catholic, from katholika, means universal. The doctrine of the Church of England is based on the Universal Church of Rome. The meme is part of NZ politics via the religious roots of the Westminster political system.

I note you quickly resort to casting aspersion about the values of those that hold a differing opinion to yourself, I note that comes under arrogance on the checklist for conspiracy theorists.

I need to clarify what Colin Craig needs to shut up about. It is comments on conspiracy theory crap not political issues of interest. He SHOULD be discussing Conservative Party policy ideas but he should refrain from offering himself as a juicy big media mocking target by leaving peripheral stuff (that is not part of mainstream conservative political dialogue even here in the US) off their website and out of his media interviews. My comment could be construed to mean he shouldn’t speak at all and that is not the case.

Ugly Truth
For every one person who get exercised about fluoride, Truther folklore, chemtrails and moon landing conspiracies and who would vote for Craig because he implies that he at least questions orthodoxy, there are ten who would never vote for him because he’s nabbling with nuttiness even though they may have some sympathy with the policy positions of his party.

I have had long, detailed, technical and thorough discussions with a few well meaning Truthers. It does not matter how many experts thoroughly debunk their wild conspiracies, they will still cling to their theories. In their world, these matters are huge and they cannot see how crazy they come across to others.

In the fragile marketplace of political perception, Craig is playing with fire and laying the foundation for electoral oblivion, especially when he’s competing with NZ 1st and Winston’s own conspiratorial world view. We all know the Greens are nuttier still but they cloak their nuttiness well and are protected by like minded media.

Craig’s clanger is the kind of career-defining and sometimes career-destroying own-goal that sticks in the public’s mind.

Craig is fast becoming a liability for National to the extent that people may be put off voting for Key’s party if the price for remaining in power means pandering to the Conservatives’ more extreme tastes.

That Craig cannot or will not rule these matters unequivocally out either by being very clear in his statements in favour of orthodox belief or, if he actually harbours his own silly belief in some of these conspiracy theories, to refuse to even discuss these sorts of questions, speaks volumes for his naivety.

In the fragile marketplace of political perception, Craig is playing with fire

Be very clear in his statements? Silly belief? Political Perception? His naivety? I mean, come on, be a little serious here – if he was anyone else but for “The Conservative Saviour of The National Party” would you not be hacking him down as a crazy loony whack job? Same thing goes for DPF and my comment earlier.

Don’t worry, apparently they’ve asked Rodney to come back. Reborn, if you will. In a New Testament kinda way.

Kiwi in America – totally agree with you. I’m not sure what game Colin Craig is playing but he is in danger of becoming the media’s go to guy when they want a wacky quote.
I agree about the Greens. The co- leader of the Greens is a former member of the McGillicuddy serious party, she was a member of the legalise marijuana party – but hell would freeze over before people like John Campbell would ever ask her a searching question about her views. So there is a blatant media bias against right of centre politicians and for left of centre politicians.

Basically what is happening with Colin Craig is standard media practice. Catch them out saying something slightly off-colour and paint him as an idiot. That’s what the media did in the United States with George Bush and Dan Quayle. Basically ridicule them as stupid and paint that in the public’s mind. On the other side in the eyes of the media President Obama is a genius and probably the brightest man who has ever been in the White House.

The reason the media does this is that they really believe that Conservative people are stupid. If they were bright they would be Liberals like them.

Colin Craig has to do a lot of work dealing with the media and getting some media training as you so rightly suggest. Because the Conservative message is a good one. There is a large portion of the electorate that is not being represented at the moment. Labour has long since abandoned people with traditional moral views. And national has shown that it also is not concerned with voters of traditional morals.

The interesting thing is that when the Conservative party policies are laid out they get a lot of support. Colin Craig has to work hard to get back on message, cut through the media clutter and distractions and bring a Conservative message to the people of New Zealand. God knows we need it. As Margaret Thatcher once said – “the facts of life are conservative”.

For every one person who get exercised about fluoride, Truther folklore, chemtrails and moon landing conspiracies and who would vote for Craig because he implies that he at least questions orthodoxy, there are ten who would never vote for him because he’s nabbling with nuttiness even though they may have some sympathy with the policy positions of his party.

One in ten?

Despite the media’s best efforts to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories, one in two Americans doubt the government’s narrative and skepticism is slowly seeping its way into the mainstream. – Russia Today

I think we should label this “ABS”- “Anti-Beltway Syndrome.” We need to bear three things in mind.
One, Colin Craig is a fundamentalist Christian and they tend to be awfully encapsulated within their own subculture. Look at those awful Left Behind books and an entire US fundamentalist musak industry centred in the United States. They’re paranoid and susceptible to conspiracy theories and social and political authoritarianism precisely because they don’t get out much and reject “non-Christian” information sources.

The second problem is that New Zealand is a highly centralised jurisdiction. Unlike the United States, Canada and Australia, we are a unitary state, not a federal one. There are no formal provinces or states, except in rugby or netball games, and Auckland is the only significantly large metropolitan centre. This means that lobby groups need to analyse and prepare their material for parliamentary party processes and procedures- if not for a governing party of the moment, then possibly for an Opposition, except on matters of bipartisan agreement.

The third problem is that Colin Craig has never held public office. This means that he is minimally engaged with what really needs to go on in terms of everyday practices, procedures and processes of government. Hence the abdication of the responsibilities that go with parliamentary constituency seats and elected representative status, in favour of continual cant about “binding referenda.” The latter is held up as a paragon of “pure” participatory democracy. In reality, well-heeled interests throw money at populist demagogues, who are bankrolled to argue for entrenched, highly partisan, sectarian and divisive sectional agendas. The latter commonly employ public relations firms to spin their message.

Colin Craig is a Christian – there is no need to add any other title to that. He is not a fundamentalist – that is a pejorative title designed to marginalise people. He doesn’t actually go to church, so the idea that he is some kind of ideologue entranced by the left behind series is pure nonsense.
He should go to church I think. Nothing wrong with being a Christian and going to church. If we all did it our country would be a lot better place in my opinion. Also we would all go to heaven when we die and avoid hell – which is a very good thing to do.

The list of Christian politicians historically would probably be a long one. The Labour politicians of the 1930s for example saw their welfare program as applied Christianity. It is only more recently that agnosticism has become the more common stance of our leading politicians.

This is not about any lack of media training, it is about staying on message (batting away media attempts to divert him) and displaying a capacity for logical rational thinking. If he can answer the questions in a way that demonstrates the latter then that serves him well, then media attempts to divert him from his message will have to move onto political matters.

Ugly Truth
The reputable polls done asking specific questions of 9/11 Truther allegations (e.g. planted explosives bringing down the twin towers) never rise above 15% of the US population. Even vague questions like “Did the Bush administration tell the whole truth about 9/11” never come close to a plurality of voters. The deeper you question voters on the specifics of Truther claims, the lower the support. The same is true with the other issues that Craig refuses to rule out.

Peter George
John Armstrong has summed up what will quickly become the conventional wisdom about Colin Craig. The media will not probe Catherine Delahunty about her wacky theories about Mother Gaia but they WILL ask Craig about 9/11, chemtrails and men on the moon. Unless Craig rules a firm line under this nuttiness and never goes back there, he is toast. I’ve been pretty deep into the dark art of politics in my time in Labour and I can tell you he is a centre left campaign’s picture child for electorally fatal character defining. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I’m just staggered at the political naivety here. There’s no point whining about the anti Christian, anti conservative bias of the MSM. Someone like Craig needs to engage with said media with the full knowledge that he is entering a lion’s den where his political destruction is the goal.

stephieboy
I’ve never believed any of the conspiracy theories about Obama. He was born in Hawaii, he is a Christian albeit nominally. But he did marinate in radical company in his earlier years (Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and was a disciple of Saul Alinsky) and has been a terrible President. Those on the right in the US (a good example is Glenn Beck) who traffic in Obama conspiracies have utterly destroyed their ability to move more mainstream conservative opinion because any good material he presents is drowned out by the rubbish and so people like me just cease ever listening any more. That is the fate that awaits Colin Craig. He will attract a small group of people who thrive on that conspiratorial stuff and evangelical Christians but he’ll burn off more mainstream conservatives who may be seeking something a little more to the right of National and can no longer support ACT.

The reputable polls done asking specific questions of 9/11 Truther allegations (e.g. planted explosives bringing down the twin towers) never rise above 15% of the US population. Even vague questions like “Did the Bush administration tell the whole truth about 9/11” never come close to a plurality of voters. The deeper you question voters on the specifics of Truther claims, the lower the support.

Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation

In the case of Craig and 9/11 Truther rubbish, explaining is losing. Umminh and aaahing is also losing. You might be part of the Truther community, the target voter demographic for the Conservatives are more put off by a candidate dabbling in conspiracy theories than excited by it.

One argument makes the case: energy signatures. There was the same heat signature from WTC7 (the building that collapsed that wasn’t hit by a plane) as for the twin towers. There wasn’t enough energy to produce this heat signature unless energy was introduced from sources like explosives. The fact that the heat signatures exist mean that the mainstream story is false, and the same heat signature indicates that the same type of explosives were used in all three buildings.